Misconceptions Regarding My Dating and Relationship Views
Lately some of the comments here and in my email have taught me something: there are some real misconceptions about my views. These misconceptions are surprisingly extreme, to the degree where it’s likely many of you think I believe things I do not.
I try to do the best to convey my views as accurately and specifically as I can. However I think because of my overly blunt tone, sometimes people begin to incorrectly assume things about what I believe. Some of this is probably my fault, and some of this is probably the fault of the usual internet readership’s comprehension issues.
Since I canât read your mind, I donât know if you personally have any misconceptions of my views, or what they are if you do have them. So today I’ll run down a quick list of misconceptions I know certain people have had so I can set the record straight. I’ll start with the biggest one first.
1. I am pro-family. I support traditional family structures, i.e. two parents living together raising children. I support long-term pair bonding between men and women.Â
Some of you seem to think that just because I’m against sexual monogamy means I am for a world where everyone is running around fucking everyone else, no one ever pair bonds, kids are left behind without consistent fathers (or mothers!), the upper 5% of Alpha Males get all the chicks, and the other 95% of betas are left masturbating in the gutter.
Um, no.
I support two-parent, cohabiting families raising their own children. The only difference between me and you more right-wing, Alpha Male 1.0, marriage 1.0 guys is that I think both the “husband” and “wife” should be allowed to go have meaningless, discreet, condomed sex on the side while they’re playing house and raising kids, if they feel they need to. Since upwards of 70% of long-term married couples do this anyway by cheating, I think it’s stupid to do this behind people’s backs.
Instead, let’s be adults about this. Letâs bring this issue into the forefront and integrate actual human biology into the equation of long-term pair-bonding instead of relying on Disney, both the female fairy tale version or Alpha Male 1.0 1950sish version, both of which have proven to not work in the real world. Even if they don’t get divorced (which is rare), people still cheat.
Imagine all the drama, pain, hurt feelings, breakups, divorces, legal battles, financial chaos, and screwed up kids we could prevent if societal, traditional marriage included the option of having meaningless, discreet, condomed sex on the side with other people and it was no big deal for either gender. That’s just being smart. That’s what I’m for, not some kind of Caligula-like polyamory free-for-all.
Of course I wholeheartedly support “real” polyamory for those people who want to do that too, but as I’ve said many times, that will never be the majority of the population no matter how unpopular monogamy becomes. Human beings like to pair-bond, monogamy or not.
As I’ve said repeatedly for years, being in love, pair-bonding, living together, being married, and/or having and raising kids does not require 100% absolute sexual monogamy at all times. Nor should it, since human beings were never designed for such a thing.
2. I support men having children.
Bizarrely, some of you think I’m am anti-child. I always find this odd, since I myself have two kids and am open to the concept of having more. I devote two entire chapters to fatherhood and raising kids in the Alpha Male 2.0 book. I think men having children is a wonderful, wonderful thing, provided you do it correctly and provided you realize in advance that your overall happiness levels will likely drop a little while those kids are between the ages of about 3 and 16.
However! If you have kids:
- Because a woman bullies you into it.
- Before you can easily afford them, knowing how damn expensive they are.
- Before you write up a legally enforceable parenting plan with the mother (before she gets pregnant!).
…then you are a moron and a direct contributor of Western civilization’s continued collapse. I also strongly believe no Alpha Male should have children until he achieves his big goals and dreams in life. That means he should not have kids until age 35 at the very earliest; after age 40 or 45 is way better. (And if you’re worried about “birth defects,” please read this.)
There’s a right way to do things and a wrong way. Do it the right way, and I think that’s great.
So if you want to have kids, can afford them, and have legally protected yourself before having them, and have hit your big goals already, then by all means, have kids. Thatâs awesome and I support you. Kids are great.
3. I have no opinion regarding free will at the scientific level. My only issue is the implication behind the anti-free will argument.
To answer some of you free will or anti-free will zealots:
I don’t have enough information to form an opinion on whether or not our actions are because of free will, uncontrollable cellular biology, or a combination thereof. I’m not a doctor, brain expert, theoretical physicist, or anthropologist. Nor are most people with strong opinions about this either way, which should tell you something about these people.
What I do take issue with is the implication behind the argument against free will. The argument is “goals, systems, missions are simply coping mechanisms and are thus useless since we live in a deterministic universe,” but the implication is “therefore, don’t do anything; just kill yourself, or sit on your ass and stare at a wall all day and don’t try to improve…what’s the point?”
I don’t know if the argument is true or not, and frankly it’s not a conversation I have any interest in since I consider it esoteric and irrelevant to day-to-day life, but I 100% disagree with the implication. All of us should attempt to better ourselves to live more happy and meaningful lives, period.
Just like Conan once said (in the books, not the movies): âLet teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.â I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Get off your ass and IMPROVE. Get better, and be more happy. It’s up to you, and you only live once.
4. I love older women. I think women over 30 and over 40 are super hot, date them often, and love doing it.
Some of you think that I dislike older women and/or only have sex with younger women. Wrongo. At almost all times I’m seeing a woman who is well over age 35, sometimes over 45. Most of the women I consider the most beautiful in the world are well over age 30. The ultimate hottest, in my opinion, is over 40 (Sofia Vergara).
I think women over 30 and over 40 are ridiculously attractive, both physically and non-physically, and have happy FB or MLTR relationships with them all the time.
True, I don’t cold approach (online or real life) any women who are strangers to me over the age of 33, because women this age won’t have sex with strangers within two dates, which is my requirement. (This is barring the “cougar exception” when the man is very young and good looking, both of which I am not.)
However, I meet women in my social circle all the time over age 33 and date them that way. If she already knows you, thatâs a âloopholeâ in the Over-33 Sex Appropriateness Rulebook; you can get to sex with her very fast if this is the case, assuming your game is strong. But if you meet her via daygame or OKCupid, sheâll demand a whole bunch of dinner dates before sex occurs (unless you’re a much younger man who is really good looking). Fine, I just wonât cold approach them that way then. Over-33 women are for social circle game only, unless you donât mind waiting longer than two dates to get to sex, but if that’s the case you’re in serious beta-zone and have much bigger problems in my opinion.
I realize there is a strong contingent of older men in the manosphere who will ONLY date women who are much younger, say under 25 or under 22. I agree with what these guys are doing but I am not one of them. I will happily date women that young because they’re awesome, but I will date older women too. They’re just as awesome; only in different ways.
As Iâve said oh so many times, if youâre a woman who is good-looking and low-drama, I will date you, and I will date you forever until either of those two conditions change. I donât care at all about your age (as long as youâre legal of course), intelligence, race, background, educational level, religion, number of children, or any of the other crap most men âscreenâ for. I donât screen, I categorize. If youâre a moron, Iâll still date you forever; youâll just be an FB. If youâre cool, youâll be an MLTR. If youâre really amazing youâll be a candidate for OLTR and Iâll have very high hopes for you. And I still wonât care about your age.
5. I don’t instantly kick women to the curb if they don’t put out by the end of the second date. Well…at least not exactly.
Some of you are under the impression that if I don’t have full-on sex by the end of the second date, I insta-next women. While that does happen sometimes, it’s not exactly true. I explain this in more detail in my primary ebook on dating, but here’s how I do it:
I do not attempt sex on the first date. I don’t even kiss (though I do sex talk and kino). Instead, keep the date to one hour to build just enough attraction, interest, curiosity, and comfort, and then I get the hell out of there and vanish. On the second date, I have her come directly over to my house and I escalate to sex. If she is very cold and clearly doesn’t want to have sex, or gives me the “I’m a lady speech,” or whatever, boom, insta-next! She’s gone, and I’m on to the next woman on the list.
However, if no sex occurs but there’s lots of passionate makeouts / feelouts and similar and she clearly is interested in me, then okay, I will allow her one more date with me to prove herself, where again, I will escalate hard to sex. On this third date, there must be sexual progression. That means there must be more sexual things happening on this date than on the second date.
If on this date she kisses me and does the exact same stuff she did on the second date but adamantly refuses to go further, boom, insta-next, she’s gone, and I’m on to the next woman on the list. I don’t need to have sex on the first date, but I will not continue to date a woman without having sexual activity with her. What a silly concept. The practice of dating with no sex is the single dumbest thing women (mostly those over age 33) have come up with and I want no part of it. How ridiculous. Seriously, are we in high school?
But! If instead she takes some clothing off or I get oral sex or something else sexually new happens, then okay, I’ll give her one more date after that, and again, there better be something “new” on that date (usually it’s sex).
This system works and almost never do I have to wait four entire dates for sex by using it. I honestly can’t even remember when I actually had to wait that long for sex. I almost always get to sex on date two; rarer times I get sexual stuff on date two and sex on date three.
So there you go. It’s not like I demand full-on sexual intercourse on date two and then hard next. I go for that, but will maintain a woman as long as there is real sexual progression. Otherwise she’s just frigid and leading me on, and she has forgotten that there’s another woman right around the corner just as hot and cool as she is who will happily have sex with me by date two (as I discuss in my podcasts).
If you strongly disagree with anything said above and want to debate me on it, notify me in the comments (or send me an email) and I will add you to the Great Blackdragon Debate topic list.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
I’ve seen some really inane debates online about how we live in a deterministic universe or whatever. It seems very strange that someone living in the Western world in the 21st century would believe such a thing. It seems so medieval. Maybe I don’t understand the philosophy fully, but why would you believe something like that when you could just as easily believe that your life is in your own hands?
@Daniel
It is because you don’t understand the difference between determinism and fatalism.
Your life is in your own hands but the DNA and circumstances you are born into as well as all external events and people that interact with you will 100% determine what you will do. It appears that you have free will but in fact it is an illusion.
And where I disagree with BD (“I consider it esoteric and irrelevant to day-to-day life”) on this is that not believing in free will DOES matter in day-to-day life because it will automatically make you more empathetic and humble. You will realize that no one is “special” just that some are born more fortunate (born to better DNA and circumstances) than others.
About your last point, it’s interesting how some women will not realize that by making you wait so much for sex they’re actually hurting their chances with you altogether. This has happened to me a few times and I’m wondering in those occasions how you let the girl know that you could be with someone else right then and there? Or is the soft next sufficient to get the message.
They don’t care.
Women like this consider their sexual rules more important than snagging any one particular man. Many over-33 women actually nexted me as soon as they realized I’d be expecting sex the next time we met (nexted me, or gave me a monogamy ultimatum).
You don’t “let her know” anything. Verbalization and guy-logic doesn’t work on women. You simply next. And not soft next, HARD next.
If a woman refuses to get sexual with you in any way whatsoever on date 3 (for example) no amount of explanations or nexting will change her mind. You need to HARD next her ass ASAP and move to the next woman on the list. (And if you don’t have a list of women you’re working with, then you’re doing this all wrong).
“That means he should not have kids until age 35 at the very earliest; after age 40 or 45 is way better.
Thereâs a right way to do things and a wrong way. Do it the right way, and I think thatâs great.
So if you want to have kids, can afford them, and have legally protected yourself before having them, and have hit your big goals already, then by all means, have kids. Thatâs awesome and I support you. Kids are great.”
BD, shame on you!!! You’ve made a grown man cry right now…
“If a woman refuses to get sexual with you in any way whatsoever on date 3 (for example) no amount of explanations or nexting will change her mind. You need to HARD next her ass ASAP and move to the next woman on the list. (And if you donât have a list of women youâre working with, then youâre doing this all wrong).”
100% correct again!!!
“I will happily date women that young because theyâre awesome, but I will date older women too. Theyâre just as awesome; only in different ways.”
That’s the perfect mindset for a man who really enjoys the whole spectrum of female company. Again agree 100%.
Daniel: user Dawson Stone provided a good, yet brief, explanation of why free will is an illusion. To elaborate: think about when you were just born – did you “choose” to open your eyes? did you “choose” to eat? Obviously the answer is No. So what happened – why can you now choose to eat and open your eyes? Well, from conception (and this is what Dawson Stone covered), we are governed by our DNA and life experiences (circumstance). And it is each life experience that is compounded together that puts us where we are today. In other words, all of the events of my life led up to me, at this particular moment in time, typing this response here to you. Sure, it appears that I just decided to go to my computer and type this, but in actuality it’s a response, as programmed by DNA and life experience, to your inquiry. What a human being really is is a biological reactionary machine: we react to things according to DNA + Life Experience. Do you understand?
Blackdragon thinks this is irrelevant. Dawson Stone doesn’t. I side with Dawson because it definitely allows us to see that we’re literally all in this together (no one is unique, no one is special) and thus the murderer and the humanitarian are only such as a result of …. do you remember?
DNA + Life Experience
There’s a group on Facebook called “The Illusion of Free Will.” Check it out. The guy there is very good, much better than me, at discussing causal determinism vs. fatalism. It will help you understanding.
Hereâs my final word on why determinism is irrelevant even if itâs 100% true:
Youâre playing World of Warcraft and having a lot of fun. Suddenly, while fighting a dragon with your buddies, you stop and say, âThis is all an illusion. Itâs just a bunch of ones and zeros on a screen sitting on a server somewhere. The software determines my goals and actions. I have no free will here. Weâre all equal here. Whatâs the point?â
Then you just stop and stand there. The dragon kills you and kills all of your friends because you suddenly stopped cooperating. Now your friends hate you and refuse to play with you. When you resurrect, you just walk around aimlessly as you lecture everyone about how all of this is not real because itâs just a game on a server. All you do is annoy people, and you stop having fun.
Are you wrong? No. Technically, youâre right. However, youâve missed the entire point of playing the game. Warcraft is an illusion, but itâs also a game you play with a point; for your enjoyment. Life, even if itâs an illusion, even if you have zero free will at some infinitesimal level you can’t consciously perceive, is also a game. One to experience to the fullest and be the happiest and most fulfilled you can while the âgameâ lasts. Acting as if you have no free will, and no one is responsible for their actions, is incompatible with the goal of playing, enjoying, and “winning” (however you define that) the game.
It doesn’t matter if you canât shoot a lightning bolt out of your hands in real life. In Warcraft you can, so go with it, enjoy it, have fun with it, and use it as best you can to fulfill your objectives in the game. Sitting there with a frown on your face as you shoot the lightning bolt thinking “this is bullshit, it’s not real” defeats the entire point. Turning to your friends in the game as you’re all playing it and lecturing them that people can’t shoot lightning bolts out of their hands is fucking stupid and a waste of your time and theirs.
Just switch lightning bolts for free will. It doesnât matter if you donât (or might not) have free will in real life at some inconceivable, imperceptible cellular level. In the âfalse illusion of free willâ that is life, you do have free will. Maybe not “for real”, but again, and in the âillusionary gameâ that is life, everything is your fault and your responsibility, so use this to better yourself, be more happy, and bring more happiness to others. While it lasts.
@its very simple to understand
You represent my views nearly perfectly. My only adjustment is I don’t believe no one is uniqueâŚactually the opposite. We are all actually unique (because we have unique DNA and circumstances). But no one is specialâŚit was just chance that you got your DNA and circumstances.
@BD
Not irrelevant because of my earlier points about humility and empathy.
Hereâs my final word on why determinism is irrelevant even if itâs 100% true:”
Nicely stated …. that’s essentially Dennett’s position on the matter. Philosophically it is usually called “compatibilism”. He wrote a book length exposition on the subject in 2003 … “Freedom Evolves”.
He doesn’t use “World of Warcraft”, but he does use Conway’s “Game of Life”.
Dawson Stone: I was careless using the word “unique” – you’re right there.
Black Dragon: I get your argument here, but it’s under the assumption that human life should or needs to be continued; that life is, in fact, a net positive; that the game (World of Warcraft) is good and should be played. What is your basis for making this claim? Why should the game be played?
Maybe this is a good debate topic.
@Nihilist: So are you arguing for mass suicide? Is that your point here?
Yes, the free will that 99% of people believe in is a myth (FWIW, Daniel Dennets argument in favor of the existence of free will comes down to a redefinition of free will in a way most people would never define it in the first place. He is basically arguing that you are responsible for your thoughts and “free will” in the same way you are responsible for your heart pumping blood or your liver producing enzymes).
And yes, it doesn’t really matter for your day-to-day life what your opinion on the topic is (doesn’t prevent many people with little reading on the topic to fall for the classic determinism=fatalism fallacy, though). But it doesn’t matter if your belief on the topic has practical consequences or not because what matters is whats true, if you like that or not is completely irrelevant.
“Who cares what makes you feel comforted? Who cares what helps you sleep at nights? What matters is what’s true” (a recent Dawkins twitter post)
Does it REALLY matter whether you’re a moderate Christian or an atheist for you day-to-day life? Not too much (especially true if you live in the first world). Doesn’t mean becoming an atheist or starting to doubt the existence of god is a necessarily a bad idea (and neither would be arguing against god in the comment section of a blog).
Its part of being an open minded, adult person to always carefully watch your own beliefs on certain topics and, if necessary, update them (and not closing your eyes to information that goes against your own beliefs “because its irrelevant for practical purposes anyway”).
Needless to say, it does indeed make you a more tolerant person if you see free will for what it is (things like hate or anger or revenge don’t make any sense anymore, for example).
@animal
I will disagree a bit on why it matters (as I have thought about this more)
The main reason stem cell research (one of the most promising for so many diseases) has barely gone any where in this country is because of religious reasons. The church has convinced millions to die in Africa versus distributing condoms.
I would argue that both religion and culturalism are both destructive forces in the world because they are by their very definition divisive. Even moderate Christians (in general) hold many beliefs that are harmful. I am glad my daughter is an atheist because I don’t want her to think god has a plan for herâŚI want her to have a plan for herself.
In order for us to be as happy as we can be we need to make the best decisions we can make given the information we have. Believing in Yahweh cannot help you here in the slightest. The reason to seek truth is truth will allow you to make the best decision you can.
animal: I’m glad there’s one more person who understands the free will delusion. Will it change anything in the big picture? No. But I’ll take it.
Yes, he pretty much is. Thatâs why he didnât respond to your comment.
Heâs proving exactly the point I made in the article, in that a lot of these guys calling themselves determinists (not all of them, but a hell of a lot of them) are actually a bunch of depressed, suicidal nihilists. They hide behind determanism but if pushed, even gently, they quickly reveal what they really are.
Anyway, if the only responses to my position above are âwe all should kill ourselvesâ or âit helps with empathy,â then I am very, very happy with my position. đ
Thanks for your answer BD, makes sense. Like people in business who prefer to stick to their full price without seeing that by negotiating once in a while they could get more sales.
Jack Outside the Box: there is a big difference between mass suicide and not procreating (creating new players of the game), no?
Black Dragon: You’ll need to retract your comment, because I don’t think you understand the definition of nihilism. The nihilist doesn’t believe anything matters, so he/she wouldn’t concern him or herself with suffering. The nihilist, in fact, oftentimes plays the life game at a more intense rate than the majority of humanity, doing whatever to whomever. I asked a utilitarian question, one that is very relevant given the seriousness of having children within the constraints in which the game is played. What reason do you have for supporting the creation of new life? If it’s “I want” or “I can” or “Everyone else is” then I think you’re on shaking ground if your goal is to be rational.
You forgot humility. đ
Dawson: you’re correct, I should have been less offensive. Let’s look at what’s going on here:
Black Dragon speaks derogatorily toward the depressed (as if people choose to become depressed), and then I respond harshly to BD (when I know Black Dragon’s comments are just a result of his DNA + experience). I’m being a hypocrite, ultimately, though my intention was to influence BD’s thought process with the tone.
What are your thoughts on this, Dawson? Should the determinist only try to influence with words alone, never aggression?
I don’t get these depressed guys. There’s no free will, it’s all an illusion, life is a waste of time, bla bla bla. It’s really annoying and extremelly beta IMHO.
If you’re already here, ENJOY. Be the best you can and the happiest you can and that’s it. If you’d like to seek answers for your own existence do it with the right mindset. Saint Augustine, Aristotle, Plato, Eric Voegelin and Viktor Frankl would be good places to start.
A lot of times life sucks on it’s own. Why would you want to make it worse whith this kind of thinking?
@its very simple to understand
In my experience logic is the best weapon against stupidity, ego and emotions. It USUALLY doesn’t work in the short term but can often work as people have time and distance.
Plus once you have made people aware of how silly their position is (through logic) they will find reinforcing evidence that shows their position to be flawed.
My therapist once asked me a question that should be simple but isn’t for most people, “Would you rather be right or be happy?” The answer for everyone SHOULD be to be happy but many people choose being right.
I can certainly think of times in my life where I have stupidly chosen to be right. I try very, very hard to not do that any more and am mostly successful.
It is the responsibility of the person communicating to say things in a way the other person can hear. If you don’t, you are just talking to hear yourself talk.
“I am glad my daughter is an atheist because I donât want her to think god has a plan for herâŚI want her to have a plan for herself.”
And she’ll be riding the cock carousel to a greater extent than if she took Christian/Traditional morality seriously. Will you be happy about that? And if she goes down the path of the typical atheist Leftist… Then say hello to her black or Hispanic boyfriend. I’m sure her German maternal grandparents will love that.
BDs philosophy of free will is Compatibilism. Its a middle of the road position that sits on the fence between the libertarian conception of free will (not associated with the political movement) and determinism. The free will debate is enormously complicated. Most people who haven’t studied it in depth shouldn’t even hold a position about it. And that means more than reading the crap that Dennett and Harris are putting out. Basically the ultimate answer to the free will question lies in the realm of physics. We don’t know enough yet to know the answers. My guess is we won’t until more is known about the quantum world.
So a determinist view is a nihilistic one in our context. And almost always determinists are political statists (usually Leftists like Harris and Dennett). We know that we have tremendous control over a wide range of action; greater than any other animal. Therefore the basic position most people should hold is the one quoted from Conan in the OP. Scientists who are researching this subject should hold their positions cautiously. But they don’t. That’s because they’re ideologically motivated as with Harris and Dennett. They’re desperate to say that no one earns anything. That way they can usher in their Leftist state. Their using neuro-science to validate John Rawls “Veil of Ignorance”. So they can usher in socialism. That in itself would make me disagree with them.
@10×10
I cannot think of a less moral moral framework then that of Christianity. Celebrating a human sacrifice to erase original sin is simply ridiculous. The pious Hindu will suffer eternal torment but the rapist and serial killer of children that comes to jesus on death row will bask in god’s embrace forever. Clearly this is an awful guide to moral accountability.
And why on earth would I give a shit if my daughter dates a black, white, asian or hispanic? Seriously? What are we in Alabama in the 60s? Wow!
I would argue that the answer to the free will debate lies in biology and not physics but it isn’t really relevant anyway. One needs only look at the logic of it to have a rationale position on the topic. We don’t choose our DNA and we don’t choose our circumstances. What part of “us” doesn’t come from those two things? Do you really think there is a magical 3rd ingredient that causes us to override our DNA and circumstances?
Yes we make choices all the time and those choices matter to us and others. But there simply isn’t a way to make any choice other than the one we make. Where’s the free will there? We are the observers of the choices we make and not the choosers of them. If I asked you to write a letter to your Dad and you were thinking about what to say you have no idea why one sentence pops to your mind and not another. You have as much control over what comes to your mind next to write as you control how many red blood cells to make today.
I do agree with BD in that life is a game (or at least that’s the way I live it) and living life like a game makes it way more fun to live and exist even though it will all ultimately be meaningless. So what. The game is still fun. I am a determinist and nihilist and yet I am not depressed and don’t think everyone should kill themselves. One can be a determinist and nihilist and still be happy…very happy.
Dawson Stone: It’s tricky, because I can choose to be happy and have ice cream for lunch, but then this will make me unhappy in the future. These tradeoffs are everywhere, so I don’t think it’s not as easy as simply choosing to be happy.
10×10: The free will debate is “enormously complicated” only because people want it to be complicated; they want something to grasp onto, a hope. As Dawson Stone pointed out, it doesn’t make any sense that there’s anything else out there, other than DNA + life experience.
Sry for too much offtopic, this will be my last post here.
“And if she goes down the path of the typical atheist Leftist⌠Then say hello to her black or Hispanic boyfriend”
Great point dude, too bad its racist.
“And that means more than reading the crap that Dennett and Harris are putting out”
Harris has a B.A. in philosophy from Stanford, Dennett’s credentials are even better. Both work as philosophers/authors, Dennett is even a philosophy professor. Pretty sure you can’t find much better qualified guys regarding this subject.
“Basically the ultimate answer to the free will question lies in the realm of physics”
Maybe reading some books from Harris or Dennet would have made you realize that quantum physics is essentially irrelevant for what we talk about here. What we don’t know for sure is: is the future determined already or are future events random (quantum physics = random)? However, no matter whether its determined OR random doesn’t change the fact that its out of your hands. Random =/= you can control it. So ultimately, if its random or not makes no difference to the fact that what happens is beyond your control -> Which, some of you don’t seem to get this, DOESNT MEAN LIFE IS USELESS. You can enjoy a nice meal and enjoy fucking your HB10 regardless of whether determinism is true or not.
“Thatâs because theyâre ideologically motivated as with Harris and Dennett. Theyâre desperate to say that no one earns anything. That way they can usher in their Leftist state”
Harris is a great example of a popular intellectual who can’t be categorized in left wing or right wing (look at his positions on Islam if you think he is your typical left-wing liberal, for example). He’s only left-wing to lazy thinkers (and probably right-wing to other lazy thinkers).
Look, there’s no free will. Doesn’t mean happiness can’t be a goal, living isn’t worse because there’s no free will. People’s arguments on the topic oftentimes remind me of the arguments made by religious people: if there’s no god, what sense does life make? Its missing the question. Free will is NOT necessary to be happy and have happiness as a goal. God is NOT necessary to be happy as well.
@animal
Well said on all fronts
@itsverysimple
Based on a lack of free will you are going to be as happy as you are going to be anyway.
If you haven’t read Sam Harris’ new book “Waking Up” you would probably enjoy it. There is some very interesting stuff in there I’m pondering about happiness being more pervasive with certain training.
Dawson:
Your points on determinism are excellent! I think free will is an illusion and yet I am incredibly happy. Likewise, I too try to be decent to people in spite of their shortcomings because I release lack of intelligence, looks, or sociability is largely something out of their control.
10X10: I suspect that increasingly most people are coming to accept that most women want to ride the cock carousel and do. Since Christianity appears to be a collection of superstitious falsehoods, using it to manipulate and control one’s children is rather loathsome and immoral. Your basically trying to use the lie of hellfire as a weapon to prevent people from following their instincts.
The above should read: “Likewise, I too try to be decent to people in spite of their shortcomings because I realize lack of intelligence, looks, or sociability is largely something out of their control. “
I’m still not seeing how the free will vs. not free will makes 1 bit of difference in my life. Sure, in the big picture I have no free will. But I do have free will in the small things in life…. do I go to bed at 11 or 11:30 tonite. Do I get up and do my job or just lay in bed all day. Free will or not, I have thousands of choices (free will) to make each and every day. My choice. How is this not free will? And what diff does it make if it is not ultimately free will? How will my day be any different knowing that it is not actually free will I still have to do the choosing. Even doing nothing is a choice.
Because it doesn’t, other than an interesting philosophical concept to think about.
None! Other than perhaps being a little more positive when you don’t worry about the fact you “don’t have free will.”
Within the “illusion” of the game of life you DO have free will and every choice IS yours. Within the game of life, exactly how your cellular biology works or subatomic physics work is completely irrelevant to your day-to-day actions or decisions.
Yes BD it is an interesting concept to think about. Kind of like getting stoned and looking up at the stars and wondering if all the planets are really just cells that are circulating in some super giant creature that the universe is living inside of.